Royal Weddings.

Giselle

So, Prince Willy and his girlfriend have announced their engagement, and they'll be hitched in the spring or summer of next year.

Already, the news has taken over Sky News, has been covered on CNN and is being featured on all the news stations in Europe.

Estimates of 100's of millions of viewers are being bandied about for the tv coverage of the day itself, and designers are being discussed by serious news reporters as contenders for the wedding dress. Its big news, apparently.

It would be difficult for me to care less.

So, are you interested?
If so, why? Will you watch the wedding on the day?

Or are the ladies of the lounge, like me, indifferent to the wedding of two people I don't know?

coffee_cake

Couldn't care less. More celebrity gossip really isn't it?

Giselle

Thats all it really is, but its annoying that its being 'legitimised' on serious News programmes. I'm actually embarrassed for some of the presenters, I'd hate to be forced to discuss wedding dresses or venues if I was a serious reporter.:)

ztoical

Giselle wrote: »

Thats all it really is, but its annoying that its being 'legitimised' on serious News programmes

Well like it or not a royal wedding is a political issue in countries with constitutional monarchies. The royal family while not holding political office still have some influence on the government, the British Queen meets with the PM every week to discuss political issues and Prince William will be the future King and the British royal family repersents an image of the UK to the rest of the world [it's open to discussion wither that is a negative or positive thing]. It's of interest to a number of people from historical and political points as his future wife does not come from a royal background.

panda100

I just read the Royal Press statement which I found a bit archaic tbh. 'Prince Willam also sought the permission of Miss Middelton's father'..... Nice to see sexist traditions remain in Clarence House.

Also, to add to Ztoical's post, they live off people's tax money, so I can understand the level of interest in them to the British public.

Edgedinblue

Its a load of codswhalop! Whatever about it being on sky news and the like, just dont show it on our tv channels. why would we care over here about them and their wedding.

Im still wondering why they think so many people from around the world will be watching it, surely its not that big of a deal to other places in the world bar england?!

I am a friend

Its also nice to see that some old traditions are upheld.

ztoical

Edgedinblue wrote: »

Im still wondering why they think so many people from around the world will be watching it, surely its not that big of a deal to other places in the world bar england?!

Americans are pretty obsessed with the British Royal family and they would be heads of state for a number of commonwealth countries as well.

ztoical

panda100 wrote: »

Also, to add to Ztoical's post, they live off people's tax money, so I can understand the level of interest in them to the British public.

While I agree they do have an income via public funds the view that they are living off tax payers isn't 100% true as the royal family has a lot of private funds such as the Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy Cornwall as well as other investments. The own a very large chunk of the UK land wise.

The civil list is the list of money paid from public funds for some expenses associated with the Sovereign performing of his or her state duties, including those for staffing, state visits, public engagements, ceremonial functions and the upkeep of the Royal Households. The biggest chunk is spent on security which is one of those catch 22's. If the public didn't care so much about the royal family they wouldn't have to spend so much on security. They are seen as a good investment from a tourism view point as while most Irish people don't get the interest, royality is big business in some european countries, most Asian countries and of course the USA.

The British royal family costs more then any other European royal household to keep mainly due to the level of interest. How many people here know if it's currently a King or Queen as head of state in Norway without checking wikipedia?

cdaly_

Who?

perri winkles

The only reason I would watch it is to see the dress

Other then that I couldn't give a toss about it

Snoopy1

Well im from the UK so have some interest in it. However, i do think the news have gone completley over the top, and its not that big deal

Orla K

I was wondering why this thread was in tll I was thinking of loads of better places it could go, I was thinking that just because it's a womens forum we're not all interested in celebs, weddings and whatever.

So no I really don't give a crap that they're going to get married, and I don't care that what's her name is going to be the next queen(if that actually happens, Queen Victoria's husband was never king but I doubt that'll happen here)

squeakyduck

Doesn't really bother me too much! But, I will probably be whinging when all I can see is page by page of "the run up to the wedding of the decade!" and I can't read the real news until I turn to page 30!!! :rolleyes:

I hated the run up to Coleen and Wayne Rooney's wedding, and they are barely married a wet weekend when he's off doing the dirty. :eek:

LenaClaire

I personally have no interest in it but people seem to love weddings in general. Start of a new married life, young love, all that jazz. They especially like it when people they have watched grow up get married and have kids.

Look at how nuts it went in the US when Chelsea Clinton got married and her dad has not been in office for ages.

It just seems very silly for it to take over the regular news. They should just stick it in the wedding magazines or whatever.

Regina Phalange

I don't know why but I am slightly interested. Maybe because I'm living in London and the whole office was on about it, it was pretty big news for 'em. Definitely interested in the dresses and the general style of the wedding (traditional, most likely, but work colleagues wondered about a more modern take). But I don't agree with the news channels perspective, this "24hr news update outside Kate's childhood bedroom window" is a load of mudpie.

Also, people have mentioned it has taken their minds off the daily 'doom and gloom' stories. "it'll certainly boost the economy".

I just think its sad that Diana isn't around for it.

Imagine coming from a regular family though and then one day actually becoming a Princess/Queen. That must be a strange feeling.

goose2005

Edgedinblue wrote: »

Im still wondering why they think so many people from around the world will be watching it, surely its not that big of a deal to other places in the world bar england?!

He'll also be king of Canada, Jamaica, Australia, NZ, Belize, Barbados, etc.

dvet

I think it's kind of interesting... they seem like a nice couple, and it makes a nice change to have a 'happy' news story in the headlines for once!

ztoical

I had to laugh at my friends reaction:

Unpopular tories in power, recession, mass unemployment, foreign wars and now a royal wedding to distract the massed peasantry from all the woes - anyone else think we've just time warped back to 1981?

monroebaby

Orla K wrote: »

So no I really don't give a crap that they're going to get married, and I don't care that what's her name is going to be the next queen(if that actually happens, Queen Victoria's husband was never king but I doubt that'll happen here)

Queen Victoria's husband Prince (consort) Albert didn't become King because he did not inherit the throne and therefore couldn't claim a title deemed higher than that of the lady in charge. When Kate marries William she should become a Queen (consort) and share her husbands rank but not hold his military or political powers. Historically and politically its important. A lot of people will be interested in it, the problem really is the way todays media drowns us in mundane detail, too much information. That's the way it is and as long as people keep making money at it, that's the way it'll stay. By the time this comes around we will surely know what even the corgi's have had for breakfast on the day. :eek:

LadyMayBelle

I feel like I may be alone in this, but I'm excited!! I have always been a fan of the royals, I think it stems from my gran's interest and her leafing throught Hello! and keeping cut outs form the newspapers. It's a common interest we both have, and I am always drawn to snippets and articles about royals, from anywhere but especially the UK and Denmark. So I am giddy already!!! My poor boyfriend has already told me to 'whist' twice this evening!

Regina Phalange

ztoical wrote: »

I had to laugh at my friends reaction:

Unpopular tories in power, recession, mass unemployment, foreign wars and now a royal wedding to distract the massed peasantry from all the woes - anyone else think we've just time warped back to 1981?

I've seen this doing the rounds on Facebook!
Also
"The 80's called, they want their decade back"

Neyite

im UK born so while l love ireland, I will always be a bit of interest in the royals. my OH just rolls the eyes and calls me a daft Tan when he saw me watching this when he came in this evening.

as she is in line to be the next british queen, she will have enormous influence for charitable causes that wouldnt normally get a second mention, for instance, when Diana went visiting AIDS victims, back in the eighties, and held their hand, and hugged them, it was groundbreaking at the time, mainly because some doctors were still insisting that it could be transmitted that way, it was considered generally a disgusting disease that perverts caught, and by Diana touching these men, she almost overnight turned public opinion and it drew in badly needed funding for this charity as well as a better understanding of a terrible disease, and compassion for its victims.

Kate brings much needed glamour (and good looking genetics) into the royals, and if lending her name to worthy causes to improve the lives of others then can that be such a bad thing?

the glamour and power will come at a huge price. this womans entire life will change within the Establishment. she will likely never have a proper bit of privacy until the end of her days. every pound she gains or loses will be scrutinised, every bit of cellulite papped, every time she makes a fashion faux pas it will be all over the media. thats not easy, for an ordinary girl who just met a man at uni that she fell in love with.

Scarinae

panda100 wrote: »

I just read the Royal Press statement which I found a bit archaic tbh. 'Prince Willam also sought the permission of Miss Middelton's father'..... Nice to see sexist traditions remain in Clarence House.

If you think the sexist traditions are bad, you should see some of the headlines over here!

"From student lover to princess, Kate’s nine-year wait is over" - yes, because all she's been doing for the last nine years is hoping he'll propose. Since that is the only objective in a woman's life.

"Kate will be the oldest spinster ever to marry a king" - Yeah, I'm surprised he's marrying someone as geriatric as 28. I know that they mean she's the oldest non-divorced woman to marry someone in line to the throne, but 'spinster' is an appalling choice of word

Vinta81

Snoopy1 wrote: »

Well im from the UK so have some interest in it. However, i do think the news have gone completley over the top, and its not that big deal

I'm from England so yeah pretty big interest I don't think they've gone over the top though, it's a Royal wedding it's getting the coverage that would be expected.

Cannot wait for it though!

FouxDaFaFa

I'm semi-interested in the ceremony itself, not having been alive for the Charles/Diana wedding and never having seen a royal wedding. However, I am dreading the news coverage in the lead-up to it. It's already taken over the media today and there is no information about the wedding available. Imagine what will happen when details are announced? I feel pretty sorry for Kate and William, tbh. I imagine a lot of the wedding will be planned for them and they'll just have to go along with it.

Max001

Giselle wrote: »

It would be difficult for me to care less.

Yet you started this thread

Scarinae

Max001 wrote: »

Yet you started this thread

In fairness, it is pretty difficult to escape this news, it is absolutely everywhere today. I couldn't give a toss about X-Factor, but I am allowed to have an opinion on it, ie. that it is incredibly irritating the way it takes over the news and my facebook feed every bloody weekend. In fact, I have posted about that very topic in R&R.

Scarinae

As for my opinions about the actual engagement, I think that it shows that the Royal family are starting to move with the times a bit more. William is engaged to his girlfriend of several years, who is from a rich but not a titled family. She has had previous boyfriends, has an education, and most importantly they chose each other. They have also been together for years, so she has a good idea of what she is getting herself into. They've even lived together before marriage - there is no way this would have been allowed a few decades ago!

Compare this to his parents, Charles and Diana - Charles had obviously fallen for Camilla, but was not allowed to marry her because she was divorced. Diana was pretty much chosen for him - she was young (I think she may have been 18 or 19?) compared to Charles who was in his early 30s, her father was an Earl, and she was a virgin. A lot of importance was placed on the virgin thing - I've heard before that some press at the time were determined to get evidence of the couple having sex before marriage, but actually recorded phone calls between Charles and Camilla, which were quickly hushed up. Anyway, my point is that they should have just let Charles marry Camilla in the first place, it would have saved so much heartache, and it was a big deal when they finally got married a few years ago.

So, I think it is a good thing that he is being allowed to marry the person he is actually in love with, not some titled virgin who has been chosen to bear sons for him and not much else. Also, Diana was so determined that her kids would grow up to be grounded, I think that she would have approved.

Regina Phalange

Neyite wrote: »

the glamour and power will come at a huge price. this womans entire life will change within the Establishment. she will likely never have a proper bit of privacy until the end of her days. every pound she gains or loses will be scrutinised, every bit of cellulite papped, every time she makes a fashion faux pas it will be all over the media. thats not easy, for an ordinary girl who just met a man at uni that she fell in love with.

I was thinking about this earlier. Its a HUGE thing to be asked to be the future Queen of the United Kingdom. Whatever about the wealth and the title but your whole life will revolve around the Royal Family. I think you'd have to give up an awful lot. I don't know what she studied at University but imagine going to University to become a teacher but it can't happen for her now. That just seems so strange to me. Maybe its me, but I think you'd have to look beyond being in love. (and I thought I was the romantic type)

Max001

Fishie wrote: »

In fairness, it is pretty difficult to escape this news, it is absolutely everywhere today. I couldn't give a toss about X-Factor, but I am allowed to have an opinion on it, ie. that it is incredibly irritating the way it takes over the news and my facebook feed every bloody weekend. In fact, I have posted about that very topic in R&R.

You're right of course and I was just pulling Giselle's leg. Incidently, right with you on X-Factor.